Quality of Life of Endodontically Treated versus Implant Treated Patients: A University-based Qualitative Research Study

Department of Endodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA 98195-7448, USA.
Journal of endodontics (Impact Factor: 3.38). 07/2011; 37(7):903-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.03.026
Source: PubMed


Up-to-date studies comparing endodontic treatment versus implant-supported prosthesis have shown similar clinical outcome and survival rates. However, no data are available comparing both treatment modalities based on the patient's perception of quality of life. This study was designed to qualitatively describe and compare the quality of life of patients with restored, single endodontically treated teeth versus patients with single implant-supported fixed prostheses.
Forty-eight patients agreed to participate in the study (n = 24 from each treatment modality). Of those, 37 actually participated in the study: 17 were endodontically treated and 20 had an implant-supported prosthesis. Patients in each of the two groups were randomly selected from the Graduate Endodontics and Graduate Periodontics Departments, respectively. Six focus group discussions (n = 3 per treatment group) were held and audio-recorded for subsequent thematic analysis. Data were analyzed to identify common themes within each category and compared to assess any differences in quality of life between the two treatments. Additionally, a quality of life survey, the shortened version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), was given before the discussion group and the responses analyzed.
The results obtained from this study show similar overall OHIP scores and show a high rate of satisfaction with both treatment modalities. Content analysis of the discussion groups revealed several themes and subthemes. The major themes were importance of overall health, financial implications of the treatments, perception of the treatments and its outcomes, time since treatment, and follow-up dental visits.
The results help identify patients' perception and concerns with each treatment modality and assist the clinician and patient in the selection of an optimal treatment for their given situation. In addition to the prognosis and outcomes, clinicians should consider patients' perceptions and preferences as well as the influence each therapy may have on their quality of life, both short- and long-term. Overall, all the participants in this study were pleased with the treatment received and expressed a clear message to save their natural dentition whenever possible.

Download full-text


Available from: Nestor Cohenca,
1 Follower
44 Reads
  • Source
    • "Pain is frequently experienced during RCT, but generally only at low levels of severity (39, 41). Pain during RCT is also usually less than anticipated (11, 16, 32). Pretreatment diagnoses such as irreversible pulpitis and acute apical periodontitis have been associated with increased intraoperative pain (41). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Root canal treatment (RCT) success criteria inform us of the path to bony healing and of prognostic factors, but tell little about how the patient perceives, feels, or values RCT. Patients choose, undergo, and pay for RCT, they live with the result, and inform their community. The purpose of this narrative review was to appraise patient-centered outcomes of initial non-surgical RCT and nonsurgical retreatment, in adults. Patient-centered RCT outcome themes were identified in the extant literature: quality of life, satisfaction, anxiety, fear, pain, tooth survival and cost. Narrative review was applied because the disparate themes and data were unsuited to systematic review or meta-analysis. Application of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) demonstrated that disease of pulpal origin affects quality of life with moderate severity, primarily through physical pain and psychological discomfort, and that RCT results in broad improvement of quality of life. Satisfaction with RCT is extremely high, but cost is the primary reason for dissatisfaction. Anxiety and fear affect RCT patients, profoundly influencing their behaviors, including treatment avoidance, and their pain experience. Fear of pain is "fair" to "very much" prior to RCT. Pain is widely feared, disliked, and remembered; however, disease of pulpal origin generally produces moderate, but not severe pain. RCT causes a dramatic decrease in pain prevalence and severity over the week following treatment. Survival rates of teeth after RCT are very high; complication rates are low. Cost is a barrier to RCT, but initial costs, lifetime costs, cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost benefit all compare extremely well to the alternatives involving replacement using implants or fixed prostheses. Dentists must strive to reduce anxiety, fear, experienced and remembered pain, and to accurately inform and educate their patients with respect to technical, practical and psychosocial aspects of RCT.
    Iranian Endodontic Journal 10/2013; 8(4):197-204.
  • Source
    • "f visual analogue scales common ( five of the nine studies ) . Length of assessment period was at most 1 year after loading ( Raghoebar et al . 2009 ) . The number of assess - ments also varied considerably between studies , with several con - ducting assessments at a single time point ( Abu - Ta ' a et al . 2008 , Raghoe - bar et al . 2009 , Gatten et al . 2011 , Nissan et al . 2011 ) to seven assess - ments ( Fortin et al . 2006 , Velez et al . 2010 ) . Two studies considered baseline assessments on the day of surgery ( Fortin et al . 2006 , Karabu - da et al . 2007 ) , and an additional four studies employed assessments within a week of implant placement ( Lang et al . 2007 , Abu - Ta '"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct an evidence-based review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in dental implant research among dentate patients so as to gain an understanding of the use of such measures, and the potential evidence that can be gleaned from such studies. A structured literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE database. Patient-related end-points in dental implant research were categorized with respect to type of outcome and reviewed. The initial search identified 3397 publications; full texts were obtained for 133 papers, and ultimately 31 'effective papers'. PROMs were primarily concerned with assessment of patient satisfaction/preference (71%, 22). A range of prosthetic treatments associated with dental implants were identified. Few studies were prospective studies that included pre-treatment assessments. There was a lack of standardization in the assessment of patient-related outcomes. There is an increasing use of PROMs in dental implant research among dentate patients for a range of prosthetic treatments. For the most part studies have been concerned with the assessment of patient satisfaction/preference but fail to employ standardized outcome assessment methods, which hampers understanding of the benefit of dental implant therapy from patients' perspectives.
    Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 02/2012; 39 Suppl 12(s12):193-201. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01841.x · 4.01 Impact Factor
Show more